Australia 1975

[they don't love you like i love you]

OK, I was just wondering if hugh or anyone else who knew about the crisis this year could explain it. I don't understand much, basically something like the Governor General tried to dismiss the Prime Minister without a no confidence motion because of some conflict with the Upper House.

[Democratic Hawk]

Apparently, both the Governor-General and the Prime Minister both had the authority and legitimacy to dismiss each other - but Kerr (GG) acted first

I don't know how far that is true

Dave

[Platypus]

here's a link: http://www.ozpolitics.info/topics/dismissal.htm

Basically, the Libs gained control of the Senate after an ALP Senator died or retired or something, and the premier of the state he was from (QLD, iirc) appointed a Liberal in his place (that didn't go down well). With their control of the Senate, the Coalition opposition blocked supply-ie, the government had no money. It said it did it because the Whitlam government was being fiscally irresposible, and to be fair, it probably was.

this dragged on for a few months and Canberra got increaasingly tense; all the bureaucrats had no idea if they'd be paid, people began to expect Whitlam to fall, etc.

Whitlam had a meeting with Kerr, the G-G, and came out fully confident he wouldn't be sacked. A week later, he was, despite the fact that the queen had not yet determined her position and for once was actually taking some kind of interest in Australian politics


Anyway, Kerr sacked Whitlam, with Fraser, infamously, the co-signatory. Fraser and the Coalition was installed as the government until elections were held a short while after, and whilst people were pissed off with Fraser, they were even more angry with the Whitlam government who really weren't terribly responsible. If you'd had to wear a chastity belt for 23 years, you wouldn't worry about a condom, right? They'd been out of governmen for that length of time and didn't care about accountability and responsibility

Anyway, Whitlam made a fantastic speech, the election was held, Fraser won easily, and the crisis was over. Now, basically every Australian political party, including the Liberals and the ALP, have a commitment never to block supply.

[Platypus]

well, I was wrong about a couple of things, including:

9 February 1975
ALP Senator Lionel Murphy appointed to the High Court of Australia

27 February 1975
The NSW Parliament appointed an independent, Cleaver Burton, to replace Murphy in the Senate. This breached the convention that replacements should come from the same political party. Labor reduced to 28 in the Senate.

...............


30 June 1975
Labor lost another Senator with the death of Bert Milliner (Queensland).

21 August 1975
The first (and only) Hayden Budget is handed down. It was well received in the media. Within days, Fraser was canvassing support to force an early election.

3 September 1975
The Queensland Parliament refused to accept Labor's nominee to replace the late Senator Milliner; Labor had nominated Dr Malcolm Colston. They appointed Albert Patrick Field, who had contacted the then Premiers office volunteering to stand as a "true" Labor man. On route to Canberra, Field said that "Mr Whitlam will never get a vote from me"; and that he would support any moves to force an early election.

[Cubby]

I remember you explained this event to me a while back Hugh

People complain about the Electoral College, what happened in Australia is even less democratic since no election was involved and some appointee from another country made the big decision. You guys really need to be like Canada and become fully independent. I love Great Britain too but your political system shouldn't be controlled by one of Queen Elizabeth's appointees.

[they don't love you like i love you]

I remember you explained this event to me a while back Hugh

People complain about the Electoral College, what happened in Australia is even less democratic since no election was involved and some appointee from another country made the big decision. You guys really need to be like Canada and become fully independent. I love Great Britain too but your political system shouldn't be controlled by one of Queen Elizabeth's appointees.

Canada has a Governor General too (although the title doesn't have a hyphen like in every other Commonwealth country and I have no clue why). And the position is appointed by the Queen only at the "advice" of the Prime Minister, meaning the PM basically does it, much like how after appointed almost every action the Governor(-)General does is at the "advice" of the PM, this case being a very rare exception. That's why it became such a constitutional crisis.

[Cubby]

I remember you explained this event to me a while back Hugh

People complain about the Electoral College, what happened in Australia is even less democratic since no election was involved and some appointee from another country made the big decision. You guys really need to be like Canada and become fully independent. I love Great Britain too but your political system shouldn't be controlled by one of Queen Elizabeth's appointees.

Canada has a Governor General too (although the title doesn't have a hyphen like in every other Commonwealth country and I have no clue why). And the position is appointed by the Queen only at the "advice" of the Prime Minister, meaning the PM basically does it, much like how after appointed almost every action the Governor(-)General does is at the "advice" of the PM, this case being a very rare exception. That's why it became such a constitutional crisis.

I thought that Canada's Governor General was appointed by Paul Martin himself, she's a black TV star, I don't remember her name. But if Canada became a nation in 1867, didn't they become fully independent in 1982, ending the GG link with England?

[they don't love you like i love you]

I remember you explained this event to me a while back Hugh

People complain about the Electoral College, what happened in Australia is even less democratic since no election was involved and some appointee from another country made the big decision. You guys really need to be like Canada and become fully independent. I love Great Britain too but your political system shouldn't be controlled by one of Queen Elizabeth's appointees.

Canada has a Governor General too (although the title doesn't have a hyphen like in every other Commonwealth country and I have no clue why). And the position is appointed by the Queen only at the "advice" of the Prime Minister, meaning the PM basically does it, much like how after appointed almost every action the Governor(-)General does is at the "advice" of the PM, this case being a very rare exception. That's why it became such a constitutional crisis.

I thought that Canada's Governor General was appointed by Paul Martin himself, she's a black TV star, I don't remember her name. But if Canada became a nation in 1867, didn't they become fully independent in 1982, ending the GG link with England?

Ever sinec 1967, the UK has never had any form of control over Canada beyond symbolic measures, the US actually has more control over some of our former colonies in the Pacific which are now theoretically sovereign. The Queen is still Head of State in Canada, but in theory she simply holds the title "Queen of Canada" in addition to "Queen of the United Kingdom", it's not that the Queen of the UK holds any sovereignty over Canada. Same situation in Australia. And the GG is de facto appointed by the PM, but in theory appointed by the Queen, it's just kind of a given that the monarch will never refuse the PM's suggestion. Much like how the Queen in theory still holds veto power over legislation passed in the UK, but no monarch has used it since the 18th century.

Just to get an idea over how ridiculous this type of stuff can get, after Ireland became independent, it initially also at first recognized the British monarch as head of state. As Ireland was part of the UK before, the King held the title "King of Great Britain and Ireland". He continued to hold this title after independence, which he technically was, however the Irish threw a fit about it, and eventually got it so that instead he simply held both the titles "King of Great Britain" and "King of Ireland" as opposed to having them combined.

[Cubby]

I remember you explained this event to me a while back Hugh

People complain about the Electoral College, what happened in Australia is even less democratic since no election was involved and some appointee from another country made the big decision. You guys really need to be like Canada and become fully independent. I love Great Britain too but your political system shouldn't be controlled by one of Queen Elizabeth's appointees.

Canada has a Governor General too (although the title doesn't have a hyphen like in every other Commonwealth country and I have no clue why). And the position is appointed by the Queen only at the "advice" of the Prime Minister, meaning the PM basically does it, much like how after appointed almost every action the Governor(-)General does is at the "advice" of the PM, this case being a very rare exception. That's why it became such a constitutional crisis.

I thought that Canada's Governor General was appointed by Paul Martin himself, she's a black TV star, I don't remember her name. But if Canada became a nation in 1867, didn't they become fully independent in 1982, ending the GG link with England?

Ever sinec 1967, the UK has never had any form of control over Canada beyond symbolic measures, the US actually has more control over some of our former colonies in the Pacific which are now theoretically sovereign. The Queen is still Head of State in Canada, but in theory she simply holds the title "Queen of Canada" in addition to "Queen of the United Kingdom", it's not that the Queen of the UK holds any sovereignty over Canada. Same situation in Australia. And the GG is de facto appointed by the PM, but in theory appointed by the Queen, it's just kind of a given that the monarch will never refuse the PM's suggestion. Much like how the Queen in theory still holds veto power over legislation passed in the UK, but no monarch has used it since the 18th century.

Just to get an idea over how ridiculous this type of stuff can get, after Ireland became independent, it initially also at first recognized the British monarch as head of state. As Ireland was part of the UK before, the King held the title "King of Great Britain and Ireland". He continued to hold this title after independence, which he technically was, however the Irish threw a fit about it, and eventually got it so that instead he simply held both the titles "King of Great Britain" and "King of Ireland" as opposed to having them combined.

If Canada is fully independent I don't see why they need a Governor General at all. Its not just for symbolism since we see in Australia what can happen.

[they don't love you like i love you]

I remember you explained this event to me a while back Hugh

People complain about the Electoral College, what happened in Australia is even less democratic since no election was involved and some appointee from another country made the big decision. You guys really need to be like Canada and become fully independent. I love Great Britain too but your political system shouldn't be controlled by one of Queen Elizabeth's appointees.

Canada has a Governor General too (although the title doesn't have a hyphen like in every other Commonwealth country and I have no clue why). And the position is appointed by the Queen only at the "advice" of the Prime Minister, meaning the PM basically does it, much like how after appointed almost every action the Governor(-)General does is at the "advice" of the PM, this case being a very rare exception. That's why it became such a constitutional crisis.

I thought that Canada's Governor General was appointed by Paul Martin himself, she's a black TV star, I don't remember her name. But if Canada became a nation in 1867, didn't they become fully independent in 1982, ending the GG link with England?

Ever sinec 1967, the UK has never had any form of control over Canada beyond symbolic measures, the US actually has more control over some of our former colonies in the Pacific which are now theoretically sovereign. The Queen is still Head of State in Canada, but in theory she simply holds the title "Queen of Canada" in addition to "Queen of the United Kingdom", it's not that the Queen of the UK holds any sovereignty over Canada. Same situation in Australia. And the GG is de facto appointed by the PM, but in theory appointed by the Queen, it's just kind of a given that the monarch will never refuse the PM's suggestion. Much like how the Queen in theory still holds veto power over legislation passed in the UK, but no monarch has used it since the 18th century.

Just to get an idea over how ridiculous this type of stuff can get, after Ireland became independent, it initially also at first recognized the British monarch as head of state. As Ireland was part of the UK before, the King held the title "King of Great Britain and Ireland". He continued to hold this title after independence, which he technically was, however the Irish threw a fit about it, and eventually got it so that instead he simply held both the titles "King of Great Britain" and "King of Ireland" as opposed to having them combined.

If Canada is fully independent I don't see why they need a Governor General at all. Its not just for symbolism since we see in Australia what can happen.

That's why this was considered a constitutional crisis. Note that this is pretty much the only incident of its type happening in any Commonwealth nation.

To clarify further: In 1867 Canada was declared by the UK to be a self governing dominion and since then it was completely and fully de facto indepedent, but officially this was only because the UK "allowed" it to be through its laws. The actions in 1982 were really only symbolic, basically Canada was "given" it's Constitution and it truly became the Constitution of Canada rather than a British Act about how Canada would be ran, and the new title "Queen of Canada" was created rather than have the British monarch as Head of State of Canada. The titles of "Queen of Canada" and "Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" are completely seperate and in theory could be held by different people, although there is no remotely realistic scenario of this ever happening.

[Joe Republic]

Is there a possibility this could ever happen again?

[Platypus]

Possible, yes, but almost no; as each party has gauranteed supply. If a government really, really, really sucked, it could happen again, but not for any reason that wasn't really justified and had definite support from the people. Even then, the G-G probably wouldn't do it.

If a government is that awful...maybe it's not a bad thing for them to face an election. That's why the G-G had the power in the first place...sorta (depends who you ask)

[Emsworth]

Canada really became independent in 1931. In that year, the British Parliament passed the Statute of Westminster, guaranteeing legislative independence to Canada and the other dominions. After 1931, British law was no longer binding in a dominion, unless the legislature of that dominion granted its consent.

The tie between the UK and Canada is now purely symbolic. Elizabeth II appoints the GG of Canada in her capacity as Queen of Canada, not in her capacity as Queen of the United Kingdom. It just so happens that both countries are currently ruled by the same person. If it wished, Canada could change the line of succession, so that it would have a different monarch from the UK.

With their control of the Senate, the Coalition opposition blocked supply-ie, the government had no money. It said it did it because the Whitlam government was being fiscally irresposible, and to be fair, it probably was.

The issue of blocking supply (i.e., rejecting the Budget) was like a controversy within the controversy. It was overshadowed by the more important issue of the dismissal, but it was a fairly significant issue in its own right.

If supply is blocked, the unwritten constitutional principle requires the resignation of the government or the dissolution of Parliament. The problem in Australia was that the Senate, not the House of Representatives, had blocked supply. Some people claimed that only the lower House is entitled to block supply, just as only the lower House is entitled to pass a motion of no-confidence. They pointed to precedent from England, where the House of Lords was explicitly denied the power to block supply by the law. On the other hand, a few people said that the Senate was entitled to block supply, and that the Prime Minister should have resigned.

[Platypus]

Well, the thing is, our upper house is elected, which does suggest it shows the will of the people. Then again, supply was only able to be blocked because of appointments made to the Senate... :S

[Emsworth]

Well, the thing is, our upper house is elected, which does suggest it shows the will of the people.

But then again, the Senate is based on equal representation, not proportional representation, of the states.

You could argue it both ways. I personally side with the view that the Senate can block supply, and that the PM would have to resign/request a dissolution in this case.